Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

NDPS | Non-Compliance with Section 52A(2) Vitiates Trial: High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Uttarakhand High Court emphasizes mandatory procedures in NDPS Act, finds prima facie lapses in sampling and certification of contraband.”

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Khurshid, convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for possession of contraband. The bench, comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit, emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural mandates, particularly Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act, during the sampling and certification of seized contraband. This decision highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in ensuring procedural compliance in narcotics cases.

Mohammad Khurshid was convicted on August 30, 2022, for possession of 610 grams of smack under Section 8© read with Section 21© of the NDPS Act. The conviction followed a police operation on September 4, 2019, wherein Khurshid was apprehended and the contraband was seized. The appellant challenged his conviction, arguing procedural lapses, specifically the non-compliance with Section 52A(2) concerning the mandatory presence of a Magistrate during the sampling of the contraband.

The court’s primary concern revolved around the adherence to Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act, which mandates that the sampling and certification of seized narcotics be conducted in the presence of a Magistrate. The court noted:

Non-Compliance with Section 52A(2): The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the procedural requirements under Section 52A(2) were not met. Justice Pankaj Purohit stated, “The provisions which are mandatory keeping in view the draconian nature of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by the prosecution.”

Judicial Precedents: The bench referenced significant Supreme Court rulings, including Yusuf @ Asif vs. State (AIR 2023 SC 5041) and Union of India vs. MohanLal& another ((2016) 3 SCC 379), which underscore the criticality of strict compliance with Section 52A(2). The court observed, “If a sample of the seized contraband was not drawn in the presence of a Magistrate and the inventory of the seized contraband not duly certified by the Magistrate, the whole trial stands vitiated.”

The court meticulously reviewed the legislative intent and judicial interpretations surrounding Section 52A(2). It reiterated that non-compliance with this section significantly undermines the integrity of the prosecution’s case. Justice Purohit emphasized, “The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification.”

Justice Purohit remarked, “We are prima facie satisfied that provisions of Section 52A(2) of the Act were not complied with in the present matter.”

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mohammad Khurshid underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring procedural fidelity in narcotics cases. By highlighting the crucial role of compliance with Section 52A(2), this judgment serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies about the necessity of following statutory protocols meticulously. The case will proceed to final hearing in due course, but the bail order sets a significant precedent on the procedural adherence required under the NDPS Act.

Case Title: Mohammad Khurshid vs. State of Uttarakhand

 

Date of Decision: June 27, 2024

Similar News